Marshall Space Flight Center is also the one that rejected Robert Zubrin’s idea for getting to Mars and favored the large Mars transport, similar to the one in the book and movie The Martian. The reality is starting to look more like Zubrin’s idea, where SpaceX will send a much larger and possibly less expensive version to Mars, not just to do a little exploration but to find a suitable location for a first martial colony. Zubrin didn’t have a colony as a near-term goal, but SpaceX has managed to drop the cost of launch so much that this is now a real possibility.

Well, less possibility at this point, but a real dream that could happen in less than a couple of decades.

By the way, I am about to respond to another of Jeff’s dreams. I just wanted to get this note off so that you knew that I saw your response before hitting “send” on the other comment.

Edward: Jeff Wright wants a lot of things, none of which have the slightest connection to actual engineering or real world cost. His detachment from these things and his apparent attachment to the NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center gives a very clear window into why that center and NASA have spent so much and achieved so little for the last four decades in trying to produce a follow-on to the shuttle.

Following its landing, Space Rider will be refurbished for re-use, as each vehicle is designed to make at least five re-flights.

This is a good start for reusability. I’m glad that ESA is seeing the light. Refurbishment is still a little expensive, and a total of six flights does not amortize the construction costs over enough flights, but it is a good start.

Refurbishment is why the Space Shuttle cost so much to operate. Refurbishment of the Shuttle cost too much and took too long.

I would prefer low-cost operations over the large down mass that Jeff Wright desires.

Buran was patterned after the expensive, low-cadence Shuttle, and we already know that Buran was too expensive for the Soviet Union to afford to fly a second time. Unlike the Space Shuttle, we don’t know much about the performance of the Buran, as it flew without payload or crew, and it was never refurbished for a second flight, so we do not know what that would cost or how long that would take.

Space Rider was clearly designed from scratch for a specific mission, is small enough that is may not have the same thermal protection problem that the Shuttle had and that Starship is trying to solve, and may not need nearly as much engine refurbishment time as the RS-25 had.

Although ESA has previously said customers will pay roughly $40,000 per kilogram, Galli said they are still considering how the pricing will work, as Space Rider will provide end-to-end launch solutions, rather than only sending payloads into orbit.

Space Rider’s per kilogram price is similar to the Cargo Dragon, which can also return down mass, such as pharmaceuticals, like Space Rider will.

Hope the FAA gets its act together soon on the permit..

Right now…it’s all about comsats.

If big pharma or other outfits are to invest… they need a wow moment

Ray Van Dune: But you left out Varda, which has already launched a returnable capsule, for a customer, with its produced drug payload ready for return with the expectations of profits from its sale.

There are viable possibilities for profit, now, for such basic capsules. Once we have operating space stations then I agree their profitability will go down, but that hasn’t happened yet.

1. I doubt that a mini-shuttle can be economically viable for anything but cost-no-object military payloads.

2. I also doubt that a capsule-based system can be economical for anything but an ultra-high value payload – the overhead costs of crew and recovery are going to be horrific.

3. Space manufacturing is going to have to wait for SLSS shared facilities, which we should have within 3-5 years, or about as long as it would take to put up a civil mini-shuttle.

4. I’ll concede that the Sierra Dreamchaser might be far enough along already to have a short period of civil viability, but the ESA Space Rider is a wild goose chase. By the time it’s ready SLSS shared facilities will be a workable reality.

YMMV

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rocbolt/8183616787

Ray Van Dune: The market disagrees with you. There are several companies (both Varda and Sierra Space) developing reusable capsules designed to do manufacturing in space and to return the product to Earth for sale, especially with pharmaceuticals.

In the case of Sierra, the company said (in 2014) that it will build an X-37B-type version of Dream Chaser. Since the thing hasn’t yet flown, we can’t take that promise very seriously. Varda however already has a capsule in orbit and is simply stalled because the FAA is refusing to issue a license to allow its return.

But for scientific work, most of these attributes are not of high value, and once a number of stations are available, experiments can be launched, performed, and re-enter on any schedule. A specially designed SLSS (Single Launch Space Station) could be designed and built around this particular business model, serving the needs of many agencies and institutions.

Only in the short run would a mini-shuttle be useful for civil purposes, i.e., prior to one or more shared SLSS being available. But the ESA shuttle is unlikely to be available in the short run.